GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 30, No. 15_suppl ( 2012-05-20), p. 4014-4014
    Abstract: 4014 Background: In this large phase III trial, median progression-free survival (PFS) improved by 5.1 mo with E+O compared to P+O in patients (pts) with NET associated with carcinoid syndrome. Baseline imbalances including WHO performance status (PS) and primary site favoring P+O confounded primary analysis. Chromogranin A (CgA) and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) are important biomarkers in NET. Analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors and adjust for baseline imbalances. Methods: Pts were randomized to E+O (n=216) or P+O (n=213). Potential prognostic factors including baseline CgA (≤2×ULN vs 〉 2×ULN), baseline 5-HIAA (≤median vs 〉 median at baseline), age ( 〈 65 vs ≥65), gender, race, WHO PS (0 vs 1, 2), primary site (lung vs other), prior somatostatin analog use (yes vs no), duration from diagnosis ( 〈 6 mo, 6-24 mo, 2-5 yr, 〉 5 yr), and organs involved (liver, bone) were assessed in univariate analysis using the log rank test and stepwise regression using Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Median PFS (mo) was significantly longer for pts with nonelevated CgA (27 vs 11; p 〈 .001) and nonelevated 5-HIAA (17 vs 11; p 〈 .001). Analyses also indicated age (14 vs 12; p=.01), WHO PS (17 vs 11; p=.004), liver involvement (14 vs not reached; p=.02), bone metastases (8 vs 15; p 〈 .001), and lung as primary site (11 vs 14; p=.06) as potentially prognostic. Multivariate analysis indicated that significant prognostic factors for PFS included baseline CgA (HR, 0.47; CI, 0.34-0.65; p 〈 .001), WHO PS (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.52-0.90; p=.006), bone involvement (HR, 1.52; CI, 1.06-2.18; p=.02), and lung as primary site (HR, 1.55; CI, 1.01-2.36; p=.04). Adjusted for covariates, a 38% reduction in risk of progression was observed for E+O (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; p=.003). Conclusions: In the phase III RADIANT-2 trial, baseline CgA levels, WHO PS, lung as primary site, and bone involvement were important prognostic factors. Exploratory analysis adjusted for these prognostic factors indicated significant benefit of everolimus therapy.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 31, No. 15_suppl ( 2013-05-20), p. 4138-4138
    Abstract: 4138 Background: Everolimus (EVE) antitumor efficacy in patients (pts) with advanced NET was demonstrated in 2 double-blind, placebo (P)–controlled, phase III trials (RADIANT-2 and RADIANT-3). Median PFS in pancreatic (pNET) pts was 11.0 months (EVE) vs. 4.6 months (P) (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.27-0.45, P 〈 0.001) in RADIANT-3. Median EVE exposure in RADIANT-3 was 38 wks. EVE was approved for advanced pNET in the US and Europe in 2011. An expanded access protocol was launched to gather additional safety data and provide access to EVE for pts with advanced NET while awaiting regulatory approval. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 years with biopsy-proven NET; WHO performance status 0-2; and adequate bone, hepatic, and renal function were enrolled. Main exclusion criteria were poorly differentiated NET and cytotoxic therapy within 4 wks of enrollment. EVE (10 mg/d) was administered until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, discontinuation, death, commercial availability of EVE, or until May 30, 2012. Pts were enrolled from April 21, 2011 to April 20, 2012. Primary objective was grade 3/4 and serious adverse events (AEs). Secondary objectives included investigator-assessed best overall response rate and PFS. Results: The full analysis set included 246 pts (pNET, n=126; non-pNET, n=120); the safety set included 240 pts (pNET, n=123; non-pNET, n=117). Median age was 61 and 66 years; 54% and 49% were male. Main primary tumor sites in non-pNET pts included small intestine (40%) and lung (22%). Median duration of EVE exposure was 12.1 wks and 24 wks in pNET and non-pNET. At data cutoff, there were 21 and 32 PFS events; 105 and 88 pts were censored. Grade 3/4 AEs were reported in 42.3% and 69.2% of pNET and non-pNET; those reported in ≥10% of pts in pNET and non-pNET included hyperglycemia (12.2% and 5.1%), diarrhea (10.6% and 31.6%), stomatitis (9.8% and 11.1%), nausea (8.1% and 10.3%), and anemia (5.7% and 11.1%). Median investigator-assessed PFS was 7.6 (95% CI 5.52-7.62) months and 10.8 (8.77-Not Estimable) months in pNET and non-pNET. Conclusions: EVE was well tolerated in pts with advanced NET. AEs were similar to those previously reported. Protocol-specified early termination of pts limits the interpretation of PFS medians. Clinical trial information: EudraCT Number: 2010-023032-17.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2013
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 30, No. 4_suppl ( 2012-02-01), p. 157-157
    Abstract: 157 Background: In this large phase III trial, median progression-free survival (PFS) improved by 5.1 mo with E+O compared to P+O in patients (pts) with NET associated with carcinoid syndrome. Randomization imbalances including WHO performance status (PS), and primary site favoring P+O confounded primary analysis. Chromogranin A (CgA) and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) are important biomarkers in NET. Analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors and adjust for randomization imbalances. Methods: Pts were randomized to E+O (n=216) or P+O (n=213). Potential prognostic factors including baseline CgA (≤2×ULN vs 〉 2×ULN), baseline 5-HIAA (≤median vs 〉 median), age ( 〈 65 vs ≥65), gender, race, WHO PS (0 vs 1, 2), primary site (lung vs other), prior somatostatin analog use (yes vs no), duration from diagnosis ( 〈 6 mo, 6-24 mo, 2-5 yr, 〉 5 yr), and organs involved (liver, bone) were assessed in univariate analysis using the log rank test and a stepwise regression using Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Randomization resulted in significant imbalance in baseline CgA (median [ng/mL], 251 E+O vs 137 P+O). Median PFS (mo) was significantly longer for pts with nonelevated CgA (27 vs 11; P 〈 .001) and nonelevated 5-HIAA (17 vs 11; P 〈 .001). Analyses also indicated age (14 vs 12; P=.01), WHO PS (17 vs 11; P=.004), liver involvement (14 vs not reached; P=.02), bone metastases (8 vs 15; P 〈 .001), and lung as primary site (11 vs 14; P=.06) as potentially prognostic. Multivariate analysis indicated that significant prognostic factors for PFS included baseline CgA (HR, 0.47; CI, 0.34-0.65; P 〈 .001), WHO PS (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.52-0.90; P=.006), bone involvement (HR, 1.52; CI, 1.06-2.18; P=.02), and lung as primary site (HR, 1.55; CI, 1.01-2.36; P=.04). Adjusted for covariates, a 38% reduction in risk of progression was observed for E+O (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87; P=.003). Conclusions: In the phase III RADIANT-2 trial, baseline CgA levels, WHO PS, lung as primary site, and bone involvement were important prognostic factors. Exploratory analysis adjusted for these prognostic factors indicated significant benefit for everolimus therapy.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0732-183X , 1527-7755
    RVK:
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
    Publication Date: 2012
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2005181-5
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 604914-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...